Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling.

INTRO: skip if u want

Since this could be, for all that it matters, one of the last big balance patches, i thought i might as well put out this discussion which has been in the back of my head for a long time.

First of all, let me ask: Are we happy with the current status quo?

For sure, it's better than in certain past periods of time but i think it's far from ideal. Uber MGs or turbo mortars are really annoying to play against and it's understandable. I would guess that fighting a blob/spam of main line infantry feels a bit more interactive than fighting a wall of MGs and auto heat seakers mortars. But those days are long way gone.

Right now mortars are a bit underwhelming (good mostly only when using barrage, which is fine) and not used frequently. For the smaller modes, more often than not it feels like a luxury to buy one due to how you are sacrificing getting a real unit most of the time. While separating the smoke from the "HE" barrage is fine, i think everyone agrees that the smoke is kinda slow in terms of launching and arriving (not sure if this can be improved).
Mgs on the other hand are all useful (don't mention maxim) but end up losing effectiveness the longer the game goes. Either due to heavy artillery, vehicles, weapon upgrades, proliferation of light cover and unit vet.

The current preview patch is trying to improve in both fronts (Mg n mortar changes) but i don't think it's deep enough to provide a real impact. At least for the long run of this units.

Ideas
I propose improvements to be made in regards to vet for both units, cheaper mortars (cost/reinforce) and nerfing light cover suppression modifier.

Light cover:
Unless i missed a change, these are the modifiers for suppression against cover.

0.1 green, 0.5 yellow, 1 nothing, 1.5 red.

The heavy/green cover is most of the time good enough to stall an MG for some time and due to the nature of it (scarce or player made) it generally relies on player input in order to use it.
On the other hand, light/yellow cover values are not enough for fighting back an MG. While we make conscious decisions of using them in the early game (fences and bushes), as the game drags on, every kind of shell and explosions produces craters which acts as light cover. This diminishes the performance of all MGs as it takes double the time to suppress a squad which can now assault frontally. It's not like we as players decide to specifically use them or that they might say slow down infantry to account for the benefits of it.

With that said i propose to nerf the suppression modifier to 0.75/0.8 (light still provides the usual 0.5 acc modifier).

This should make mid to late game MGs less bad at their job, specially when fighting multiple units with vet and improved dmg.

Veterancy MG:
NOTE: values taken from vet guide.

This is what a normal infantry squad vet more or less looks like:

Vet1: ability or in some cases small performance boost (
Vet2: 20%/40% acc 20%/25% weapon cd
Vet3: -20%/-29% RA

With vet 2 and 3 values been interchangeable.

This is what MGs looks like (i know WFA/UKF is slightly different):

Vet2: +20% suppression. +30% weapon rotation speed.
Vet3: +30% acc. +20% rate of fire. +10% weapon rotation speed.

Why not add -20% RA at vet2/vet3? Yes, we need to still test the change in formations in the current preview, but let me remind everyone that vanilla support crews already have 1.25 size/RA.

Cost Mortars:

With all the changes which favours MGs (light cover + vet) i think the natural decisions is to take a look at the main counter.

-Reduce the purchase cost of small mortars by 20mp.

The proposed changes are only meant to affect the basic mortars. This means the GrW34 (OH), 82mm (SU) and the M1 (USF). This leaves out the Mortar HT, 120mm, ISG/Pack Howie and mortar emplacement.

Vet + Reinforce cost
This is what vet looks like now.

Vet1: -25% recharge time of the "Flare" ability.
Vet2: -40% recharge time of the all barrages.
Vet3: +20% barrage accuracy.

The difference between a vet 0 and a vet 3 mortar is minimal. The only indirect fire units which still have "proper" vet are, in order of power, the Pack Howie (get's white phosphorous + Heat) > ISG (RA + vet5 power improvement which is kinda late) > mortar emplacement (vet 3 HP increase).

I suggest that ALL mortars should get:

Vet2: -23% RA
Vet3: -20% reinforce cost (IIRC old Ro.Eng vet).

ISG should get the reinforce cost and reshuffle of some of the vet values.
Pack Howie only getting the RA for starters.
Not sure about mortar emplacement.

The values are defensive oriented and not interesting on purpose. It just makes less punishing to use them.

TL;DR:
-Light cover suppression modifier from 0.5 to 0.75/0.80
-MGs vet2 or vet 3 with -20% RA Reminder support weapon crew still have 1.25 size/RA
-Small basic mortars, -20mp cost
-Mortars vet now gain -23% RA and -20% reinforce cost.

Not sure about mortar emplacement.

The Emplacements in general can return more MP when dismantled with each vet. Like now they all give back 100mp, may be vet 2 can return 150 and vet 3 200 MP.

The Emplacements in general can return more MP when dismantled with each vet. Like now they all give back 100mp, may be vet 2 can return 150 and vet 3 200 MP.

This was proposed for Withdraw and Refit back when it was still a thing, if I'm not mistaken. Personally, I find this to be a fair solution. The exact MP values would have to be adjusted (I'd propose exponential growth as a starting point, so something like extra 50/100/200 MP for vet 1/2/3), but overall it would reward players for holding on to their emplacements.

Overall I agree with OP. Not sure about the exact changes that should be made, but overall the suggestions seem reasonable.

I am not 100% sure about the RA bonus though, since this would somewhat negate one of the counters (infantry push).
I think one of the main issues currently is the damage output. The mortar needs constant support, but especially in smaller modes the game is too mobile to really hit something. In larger modes I found them quite useful. A straight buff to DPS though might throw off performance in larger modes, so maybe OPs suggestions are the right solution even if they do not really tackle the main issue in my eyes.

Mostly agree.

Some points are the received accuracy bonus on HMG can become problematic when the gun is recrewed.


Heat barrage is OP, the reinforcement cost on mortars might not be very effective since the do nto see allot of combat. Imo the bonus could included pack/set up times bonus, rotation bonus, speed bonus.

In addition imo crew should have their reinforcement times increased since when the can reinforce they are difficult to finish of and they forcing them of the field should be more punishing.

The Emplacements in general can return more MP when dismantled with each vet. Like now they all give back 100mp, may be vet 2 can return 150 and vet 3 200 MP.

Outside of specific values, seems fair. Though i more cautious in what to give it since vet 3 is actually more useful than the rest and they are getting a fair share of improvements on this patch. This is on top of the fact that mortar emplacements can't really bleed and you have a dangerous cocktail.

I am not 100% sure about the RA bonus though, since this would somewhat negate one of the counters (infantry push).

Some points are the received accuracy bonus on HMG can become problematic when the gun is recrewed.

The bonus is low enough to put the basic crew back to 1.0 size and is countered by ALL infantry squads vet accuracy bonuses (even the lowest been that of IS at +20%)

As far as recrewed weapons with other infantry, one is already paying the reinforce cost of the squad you are recrewing it with and losing on either 1 or 2 models performance since those are still gonna have to man up the support weapon.

I think one of the main issues currently is the damage output. The mortar needs constant support, but especially in smaller modes the game is too mobile to really hit something. In larger modes I found them quite useful. A straight buff to DPS though might throw off performance in larger modes, so maybe OPs suggestions are the right solution even if they do not really tackle the main issue in my eyes.

The change is there to make mortars easier to field for lower modes. The bonuses are small enough and defensive oriented in order to not disrupt their current performance on bigger modes.

the reinforcement cost on mortars might not be very effective since the do nto see allot of combat. Imo the bonus could included pack/set up times bonus, rotation bonus, speed bonus.

In addition imo crew should have their reinforcement times increased since when the can reinforce they are difficult to finish of and they forcing them of the field should be more punishing.

That's a fine addition/alternative, though i'm not sure outside of rotation how effective can they be.

For your 2nd point, not sure if you are talking about a specific support weapon or in general.
Mortars would make 2x AT gun play harder and they already are punishing to have them to retreat manually back to base or find alternative ways of healing.
Not sure if mortars need that reinforce time increase and it might be worth trying for MGs (i think you are talking about the cases on which you have a mobile reinforce and you constantly reinforce the MG) but not sure it's a problem atm.

think there is some issues with your quotation making my some part of your replay look like I have post it.

think there is some issues with your quotation making my some part of your replay look like I have post it.

I just answered both Hannibal and you at the same time.

...

Regarding the RA:
I was talking about the mortars here but forgot to specify that in my post.

Regarding the RA:
I was talking about the mortars here but forgot to specify that in my post.

OK.

I still think they are too punishable once vet and weapons upgrades kick in. In case of mortars, i think their offensive performance is fine atm, it's just a matter of adjusting the cost and making vet actually matter.

I'd rather not see fundamental changes at this stage of the game's life cycle. Mortars, MGs and infantry all play in a good way between themselves at the moment.

20 MP cost reduction for mortars seems good. Most of the vet changes seem fairly minor? RA for a mortar won't really do much except maybey allow for slightly more offensive plays. I actually don't think there's a big problem with combined arms. MGs are built the vast majority of the time. Even mortars see frequent use in automatch.

I'm not sure what to think about the yellow cover change. There should be other priorities imo. And keep in mind that MGs already got buffed this patch. (Formation, Reload and sniper sight reduction)

20 MP cost reduction for mortars seems good. Most of the vet changes seem fairly minor? RA for a mortar won't really do much except maybey allow for slightly more offensive plays. I actually don't think there's a big problem with combined arms. MGs are built the vast majority of the time.

I'm not sure what to think about the yellow cover change. There should be other priorities imo. And keep in mind that MGs already got buffed this patch. (Formation, Reload and sniper sight reduction)

The changes are minor in purpose to avoid requiring several patches in order to fix a big rework.

My issue is the discrepancy between first 10 mins of the game performance of MG - Infantry - Mortar which is fine and past 15/20 mins on which suddenly MGs end up been less and less reliable and mortars been less needed as well.

When you assault and MG with 2 squads, you don't necessarily think OH i'm going to click here because there's light cover so the MG takes double the time to suppress. You just click at opposites sides of the arc.

The same move at 5/10 mins of the game which results on a failure, once vet and cover becomes more predominant results in a win.

Even mortars see frequent use in automatch.

I mean, the last tournament saw in every game basically 2x MG / 2x AT gun in both sides and no one bother getting a single piece of indirect fire (at least from what i remember and i checked rapidly the all finals and semis)

I'm totally on board with the philosophy in the post, and I think the changes you've suggested are good ones. Directional heavy weapons is a fairly unique feature for an RTS and they do a lot to spice up the game. And they should be doing that a little more.

MGs and especially mortars have scaling issues for sure. I wonder how much of it has to do with their crappy vet, and how much has to do with simply losing a role on the battlefield? Artillery just replaces mortars.
So, cost and defensive bonuses seem like a fair way to do it. Mortars being more available and less vulnerable give them a niche.
Responsiveness would be another way to differentiate them from artillery: with vet, they could gain shell speed (might screw up people's responses...) or, like my Japanese mod mortar, gain faster setup time.

OK.

I still think they are too punishable once vet and weapons upgrades kick in. In case of mortars, i think their offensive performance is fine atm, it's just a matter of adjusting the cost and making vet actually matter.

I mean, the last tournament saw in every game basically 2x MG / 2x AT gun in both sides and no one bother getting a single piece of indirect fire (at least from what i remember and i checked rapidly the all finals and semis)

I would interpret that as a sign that mortars do not do enough damage because they have a hard time hitting stuff in the more mobile gameplay of 1v1. MGs also do not get RA, yet they are used. So I assume the lack of RA in veterancy is not going to fix that mortars are underused in 1v1 and in my experience also 2v2, especially considering that they are in a much safer spot that MGs by default.

They cost as much as mainline infantry but cannot do much on the defense, need a lot of scouting/planning and micro on the offense and additionally are bad for capping points. And if you the majority of your army got pushed back to base, your mortar becomes useless since it needs a forward spotter. Plus late game they are a prime target for rocket artillery if there is no other suitable target around. Yes, there is smoke etc, but in the end in 1v1 another mainline infantry seems to be the preferred choice.
The only unit that gets 1v1 play is the pak howie, I assume this is because of the good AoE. If we don't want to buff damage, the cost decrease could be a bit of help but I assume it is not enough. Another possibility would be to additionally decrease pop cost so that it is easier to fit them into builds also in the late game, although this might lead to spamming in larger modes (which however would make you more vulnerable to rocket arty, so might not be an issue).

It would be interesting to compare the WC2019 WC2020 of number of indirect fire weapons used because support weapons where used allot in 2019. Unfortunately the numbers are not available for WC2020 but I am under the impression that the pace of the game has been increased and support weapon saw less use.

It would be interesting to compare the WC2019 WC2020 of number of indirect fire weapons used because support weapons where used allot in 2019. Unfortunately the numbers are not available for WC2020 but I am under the impression that the pace of the game has been increased and support weapon saw less use.

As long as we don't have facts it is hard to really say if this is true or not, but as Elchino already mentioned we regularly saw 3-4 support weapons in normal builds which seems like a reasonable amount.

The only thing I find a pity is that mortars are not among them, since they seem to be not worth it in 1v1 and partially 2v2.

As long as we don't have facts it is hard to really say if this is true or not, but as Elchino already mentioned we regularly saw 3-4 support weapons in normal builds which seems like a reasonable amount.

The only thing I find a pity is that mortars are not among them, since they seem to be not worth it in 1v1 and partially 2v2.

I just trying to point out that is seem to be quite a recent changes:

WC2019:
Ostheer 40 games, number of units builds/number of games:

MG42 51/33
GrW 34 Mortar Team 8/8


Soviet48 games, number of units builds/number of games:
M1910 Maxim 31/23
DShK 38 Heavy Machine Gun 9/5
Paradrop DShK HMG 1/1
PM-41 82mm Mortar 6/5
HM-38 120mm Mortar 1/1


OKW 61 games, number of units builds/number of games:
MG34 Heavy Machine Gun 93/57
7.5cm le.IG 7/6

USF 44 games, number of units builds/number of games:
M2HB .50 cal 80/38
M1 81mm Mortar Team 10/10
M1 75mm Pack Howitzer 6/5
Air Dropped Combat Group 4/4

UKF8 games, number of units builds/number of games:
Vickers HMG 5/3
3-inch Mortar Emplacement 1/1

...

Apart from maybe USF it seemed to be quite poor then as well. One single mortar every 5th to 10th game is not much, especially regarding the amount of MGs built that would be good targets (plus ATGs obviously).

I think this WC was heavily dominated by the early game meta of call-in units which has had a massive knock-on effect on builds of other units. Anything that diverged slightly from the standard 2020 meta was an uphill battle. Movement and quick reactive units are key to victory in any 1on1/2on2 at the moment with this meta, and not sitting down and relocating Mgs/mortars - as reflected by the WC. Feels almost like CoH2 is merging towards a SC2 playstyle - with USF reacting accordingly to the meta by using Howies/50cal more as they come out at the right time after the early game play. This might be a meta fad that will change with the next patch. I am not happy with the status quo, but i'd happily try the idea as proposed by OP.